I'm going along the same line with pannu. That means not following any of Isaiah's option but keeping the current structure of this year: 6 Opens and 6 Seasonals, just with NFE replaced by Partners in Crime. Reasons: It's working pretty well, and while there's one meta to be left unplayed in a bo5, I think 1 is better than 0 or 2. 2 means you have to prep for 7 metas while potentially having more unused teams in a round than used ones. In other words, too much work for little reward. 0 means seeding hardly matter, getting to choose a meta first doesn't matter when you have to be better in 3/5 metas anyway. Having 6 metas in a bo5 ensures you are actually rewarded for getting more circuit points since even if you are better in 3 metas but worse in 3 metas the higher seed will still win due to getting their choice first. That will encourage people to get more points even if they are already comfortable enough to guarantee an OMCC slot. If we end up with 5 metas in bo5 for OMCC, I straight up suggest that the first seed gets to choose their opponent ranked between 9-16, then second chooses from the rest, etc and same with QF, SF and final, otherwise what's the point of trying to play more circuit tours? BO7 is straight up too long and shouldn't be considered ever, even a rand BO7 got massive backlash, no way a trambuilding BO7 works when it's 7 different metas.
Then is it unfair to Inheritance? Probably, but the most important thing to remember is PiC was advertised to be a part of circuit, Inheritance wasn't. https://www.smogon.com/forums/threa...n-om-team-tours-8th-slot.3725429/post-9726320
Then is Inheritance doomed to be in this middleground spot where it gets represented in team tours but not circuit? Well, for next year, it should at least, but not necessarily forever. I think having a robust middleground system will be healthy in the long run. This goes a bit further than the circuit/team tour scope, so hear me out. I propose that there's a middleground system with annual + biannual (twice a year) review. Annual review: Perma OMs that don't meet the requirement for activity in terms of ladder and tour stats + maybe dissatisfaction from OM players due to meta's nature or council inactivity + forum activity will get demoted to middleground status next year, while the middleground meta moves up to take its slot in the circuit. Biannual review: If there's no change in the annual review/only biannual review, then discussions on whether the middleground meta meets the standard take place. If there's a meta that shows more activity and deserves to get a chance, the middleground meta gets demoted to normal OM while the replacement meta gets representation in whatever team tour for that 6 month period is. This ensures there will be incentive for all metas to thrive to one day make it to the top and a place in the circuit, while potentially also benefit more "seasonal" (can quickly become enjoyable or not depending on meta) metas of sort to be in the middleground spot, like Tier Shift for example who would benefit from 6-month periods with stable tiers but can quickly be demoted upon a new gen + maybe extra content of sort like DLC. How to do this idea specifically? Well besides the regular stuffs like observing activity on Discord, PS, here, maybe a biannual survey + OM leaders' concerns (like the seasonal stuff). Maybe something else, but that's my general proposal.
Then is it unfair to Inheritance? Probably, but the most important thing to remember is PiC was advertised to be a part of circuit, Inheritance wasn't. https://www.smogon.com/forums/threa...n-om-team-tours-8th-slot.3725429/post-9726320
Then is Inheritance doomed to be in this middleground spot where it gets represented in team tours but not circuit? Well, for next year, it should at least, but not necessarily forever. I think having a robust middleground system will be healthy in the long run. This goes a bit further than the circuit/team tour scope, so hear me out. I propose that there's a middleground system with annual + biannual (twice a year) review. Annual review: Perma OMs that don't meet the requirement for activity in terms of ladder and tour stats + maybe dissatisfaction from OM players due to meta's nature or council inactivity + forum activity will get demoted to middleground status next year, while the middleground meta moves up to take its slot in the circuit. Biannual review: If there's no change in the annual review/only biannual review, then discussions on whether the middleground meta meets the standard take place. If there's a meta that shows more activity and deserves to get a chance, the middleground meta gets demoted to normal OM while the replacement meta gets representation in whatever team tour for that 6 month period is. This ensures there will be incentive for all metas to thrive to one day make it to the top and a place in the circuit, while potentially also benefit more "seasonal" (can quickly become enjoyable or not depending on meta) metas of sort to be in the middleground spot, like Tier Shift for example who would benefit from 6-month periods with stable tiers but can quickly be demoted upon a new gen + maybe extra content of sort like DLC. How to do this idea specifically? Well besides the regular stuffs like observing activity on Discord, PS, here, maybe a biannual survey + OM leaders' concerns (like the seasonal stuff). Maybe something else, but that's my general proposal.